In this PIL concerning the regulation of pesticides to promote organic farming in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that the matter involves a policy decision for the State lacking judicially manageable standards and did not issue notice. The petition was dismissed with no consequential directions.
No notice issued; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(2) PIL 62-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Amk
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 62 OF 2019
Harish s/o Gopal Shetty .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors .. Respondents
Mr. Sumit Khanna a/w. Mr. Chirag Chanani i/b Dewani Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w. Mr. Bhavin Bhatia, Mr. Y. P. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-UOI.
Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for the Respondent No.5-State.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2019.
P. C. :
1/2
(2) PIL 62-19
also be needed to augment the output of food-grains.
[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
[CHIEF JUSTICE]
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can stimulate organic farming in Maharashtra by regulating sale of pesticides.
Whether the petition raises a manageable policy issue within judicial standards.
Harish s/o Gopal Shetty
Union of India
Pradeep Nandrajog
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
